[Newsbot]

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=31581" target="_blank">Army begins using $150,000 artillery shells in Afghanistan</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/13-military" target="_blank">Military</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Hyack" target="_blank">Hyack</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2008-03-24 14:31:29
<strong>Canadian</strong>

[martin14]

im not saying dont use it..

but jesus, thats an expensive whore..

could buy a lot of AK's for that money.. lets be happy the Taliboys dont have that kinda dough..

[commanderkai]

I got to agree...holy shit...$150,000? I mean...why do you need countermeasures for an artillery shell? The Taliban can shoot these shells down? Why not just use regular shells that cost what? A few hundred a piece?

[QBall]

I think this makes more sense. Would it be better to use 25 inaccurate rounds to do the job one precision guided munition can do? This will cut down on collateral damage, civilian deaths and friendly fire casualties as long as the coordinates being relayed are accurate. If we can't have Tomahawks I say this is the next best thing.

[BartSimpson]

$150k is a pretty expensive piece of munitions. It'd be cheaper to do a TOT with standard rounds and a lot of them, too.

[Wullu]

I was wondering if the ground pounders were going to get themselves some of these.

Good Stuff!


But, this quote is not even remotely close to true,

$1:

The Excalibur shell could very well be the most expensive conventional ammunition ever fired by the military

Sea Sparrow, SM2-MR Mk-48 and Harpoon all run a tad more than $140,000.

[BartSimpson]

The Phoenix ran a shade over a million each and so do the Tomahawks.

Good thing the CF didn't get into those.

[Wullu]

True enough, and I forgot all about airborne weapons. Sparrow, AMMRAM and LGBs all run into serious coin.

[ridenrain]

How much does it cost to have a NATO jet drop a JDAM? What would it cost to move out Canadian aircraft and re-learn close air support? Would one of these be more reliable in danger close air support situations than a bomb?

[djakeydd]

Nice to see our tax $$$ at work, after all, there is probably little better place for it to be spent, infrastructure, national defence and sovereignty ..naaahhh, why bother?

[Freakinoldguy]

Expense not withstanding, everytime technology comes up with something like this it just takes one halfwit on the otherside to figure out a much less costly contermeasure.

Granted, these shells can be dropped directly on the Taliban with no supposed collateral damage to civilians, but...............what's to stop the Taliban from rounding up all the civilians in the area and forcing them to live with them????

You still end up with the civilian casualties but a cost much higher than if you'd gone with conventional weaponry.

[SigPig]

I see the advantage but this seems to be excessive. It can lower civilian death rates which is always a good thing but how bad was the problem before? In other words, was our arty killing so many people that it justified spending up to $148,000 more per shell. Spend that money building more roads and achools, and arming the ANA, I say.

[Bacardi4206]

You don't really hear much reports, or news or complaining about civilian casualties by artillery. Its usually always with anti-tank weapons, used to take out insurgents dug deep in buildings and sniper spots, tanks, or aircraft.

[dino_bobba_renno]

At the rate we're why dont' we just pay the Taliban to go away?

[ShepherdsDog]

I hear New York could use more cab drivers.